Has DVXUSER Jumped The Shark?
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
- Status
JPNola
Veteran
Noble, I suppose. But is it wise?
http://https://thecybersafetylady.com.au/2011/08/should-you-use-your-real-name-on-the-internet/
filmguy123
Veteran
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
I feel like DVXuser has "jumped the shark" a few times since its beginning in the early 2000s. I remember back then it was made solely for owners of the Panasonic AG-DVX100 by Jarred Land. I was in my early teens then, still fairly fresh to the filmmaking scene... then slowly DVXuser opened up to other DV/HDV cameras, then HDSLRs when the 5D MK2 came out, then before I knew it, it was just a general fourm divided into sub forms for specific digital cameras, etc, etc. So in a way, its just mutating again I guess due to Covid, who knows, all im saying is the initial shark jumping happened well over a decade ago.
Um, I wasn’t looking for enemies, just making an argument for not having a real-names-only policy... IN FACT a subject of the thread, and a policy proposal by multiple posters about how the site ought to be reformed - or did you not notice, LOL?
Well, bully for you. Others are here for a lot of other subforums, not just production talk - is it OK if they use those parts of dvxuser or should we only keep those sections that you’re “there for”? I’ve been here since 2006. I’ve certainly participated in production, camera, and other technical forums, but that’s not my primary interest. I’m more interested and have participated in the content creation aspect of screenplay, acting, direction and so on, as well as discussing actual content, whether by dvxusers or general reviews of films/TV. You want to discuss production only - fine, you don’t see me telling you “you’re doing it wrong”. Can we who have other areas of interest as well get the same courtesy from you? Thank you!
Good for you! Is anyone stopping you from discussing flange distances? Do you see me jumping in with my “not real name” and preventing anyone from discussing any issue at all? But is it OK if we discuss topics of interest to other posters who freely post here, and can we reference the 5th amendment if we see it as relevant, or should we only be allowed to discuss flange distances and topics of interest to you? Yes, it’s an international forum, and part of that is the U.S., too - is that OK by you? Because I personally have no problem reading - and in fact I have posted - about European production, and content from any part of the world. So, I don’t see why something that references U.S. issues should be verboten.
Don’t like a subject? Don’t participate in that thread or forum, problem solved! But don’t tell anyone else what forum they’re allowed to post and on what subject - after all, nobody is telling you that. Show the same courtesy to others.
I can’t help your inability to conduct proper searches. I have close to 3000 posts here. I can assure you, I have many, many technically oriented posts (especially sound) - if I link to some of those posts, what will you say to justify the fact that your research appears to be lacking and not able to match your negative claims? But again, there are many subforums on dvxuser and I have greater interest in screenplay, acting, content creation and critique. I post a lot on those topics. Even if I didn’t make a single post outside of those areas of interest, I’d still feel I have made a contribution to dvxuser - even if not in your eyes... but then again, I don’t live for your approval, so please take “the measure of me” in any way you wish, and we don’t need to interact ever
There are many subforums here. It’s OK to only post in a few. It’s OK to have primary areas of interest. It’s OK to have yours and not attack others for having differnt interests. It’s OK to live and let live, that way everyone gets to live.
And for those who wish to use their real names, because they think it’s excellent marketing or any other reason - great, you can do it already! But why insist that everyone else share your preferences and impose those on everyone else? I don’t propose to impose “aliases only” policy, so how about you do you, and I’ll do me, thanks!
Regarding the proposal from Liam, to limit the posting rights of those who don’t use their real names, or create forums that only allow real names. I’m not opposed to it in principle, but I don’t think it’s especially practical or beneficial to the growth, retention or to the benefit of dvxuser - I do think the opposite. Now, I can think of areas where that might make sense - for example, only real names in the FOR SALE or trade sections - Ebay manages to do it with aliases, but I can see the at least some justification for a real names only policy when it comes to dealing with gear or services for sale.
But in a practical sense, if for example, I have no interest in a section, say Sony cameras, I just don’t post there. How does a real name policy help anyone here? If one day I find myself unexpectadly working with a Sony camera, do I have to now register in my own name to ask a question on the Sony forum? Because it seems that it would prevent many people from asking questions and participation on such a forum would be lower and not necessarily better.
And maybe knowing that someone is a DP - with a real name and CV - is comforting when participating on a forum, and so “real names only”. I’m not a DP, I don’t make that a secret, LOL, why would I? So you know that going in. I have not come across a case yet, where someone says “I know, because I’m a DP, so listen to me (but actually I’m lying and not a DP)”. But, newsflash - people who are not DPs regularly make decisions about hiring a DP and they evaluate DP work - I have certainly done so in my capacity as a producer. Directors do too. Often we look at a DP’s work from a completely different perspective. It seems to me that such voices can be of interest. To restrict participation in such a forum, does not seem to me to lead to more participation from more people, but maybe I’m wrong.
Anyhow, I’m certainly not opposed to the creation of “real name only” forums, as per Liam’s proposal, even if I don’t think they’re beneficial or practical in the long term. But I also think we should have forums where those who do not wish to use their real names can participate. Hey, we could even create alternate forums “SONY cameras forum - real names only” “SONY cameras forum - all names welcome”. Soon you can duplicate the site into dvxuserALLNAMES and dvxuserREALNAMES - not practical, but then again, that’s the logical end of where that goes... again, not practical in my view, but you do you.
Meanwhile, I think the TOS is fine - keeping politics and religion out of dvxuser is not easy, and complicated, but ultimately the right thing to do. The only thing I think is unnecessary within the TOS is the “no negativity” rule, as that’s completely arbitrary and restrictive and limiting. YMMV.
Ben Scott
Veteran
I don't care mate. I'm happy for you to 'win'.
As I previously stated I will confine myself to my one little thread I made from now on because there is a very strong feeling that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and if it creeps in there too I will happily flounce off into the sunset.
As I previously stated I will confine myself to my one little thread I made from now on because there is a very strong feeling that the lunatics have taken over the asylum and if it creeps in there too I will happily flounce off into the sunset.
How to increase diversity? People make all sorts of claims, but provide little evidence. I’d like to try to provide evidence.
The way to increase diversity is to make the site an alias only site - no real names. However, failing that, to leave the option of aliases. Evidence? Yep, we have excellent data in that respect.
When orchestras hire musicians, they audition them. It used to be that a panel would listen to someone play an instrument and the musician would do it right in front of them. The result was very little diversity for decades. Then, they switched to having the musician play behind a screen. Wouldn’t you know! The diversity skyrocketed! All of a sudden f.ex. women started getting hired and that changed auditions forever. Women musicians used to be a rarity in orchestras, but since the blind auditions started, the numbers of women soared - today, for example, fully half of all musicians in the New York Philharmonic are women. It was so successful that orchestras have now fully saturated with “interested” musicians and now to increase diversity further along minority axis they’re even thinking of simply doing a quota system and dispensing with blind auditions in such cases! But the point stands - blind auditions revolutionized the ranks of women in the ranks. Is it the *only* solution, of course not, and as we’ve seen in the quota system, sometimes blind auditions are not the only answer.
It remains a fact, that a woman or POC may feel more comfortable interacting anonymously and without the pressure of possible bias on sites like dvxuser. Because bias can be totally unconscious.
The reality is not that the panels were necessarily racist or misogynist. There is such a thing as unconscious bias, which you may simply not be aware of, despite your best efforts.
This is why it’s such a pernicious suggestion that you can only evaluate what someone says by knowing who it is who says it. The opposite is true, and we’ve known this for centuries, hence the saying “don’t judge a book by its cover”. We all have unconscious biases and therefore *who* says something in fact influences us away from objectivity - it would be much better to *not* know who says what, and evaluating what they say from behind a screen, like in the orchestra example.
But this is not my only “evidence”, it’s just a very striking example. Because the evidence has been all around us for a very long time: this is such a well-known fact, that institutions have made extensive efforts to anonymize tests, essays and other evaluative techniques, to increase diversity and access the best candidate for a job. If we only ever did face to face interviews, we’d end up with little diversity - which is why there is such an emphasis on anonymizing whether admissions, or job applications, or best product ideas or whatnot. if you want to eliminate bias - anonymize.
So people who want to “take the measure” of someone by learning of their identity are asking that they bring in bias into their interaction - unconscious bias, which they are unable to compensate for. I strive to do the opposite. I strive to remove the impact of any bias I may have - and we all have it, and we can’t compensate for it - by among others, removing the identity from the equation. I don’t want to judge the argument by who makes it, a book by its cover. Just concentrate on the content of the book, not what wraps it, and on the content of the line of reasoning and not who makes it. When you know a person X makes an observation, your unconscious mind takes into account the context of all the supposed - and sometimes real - characteristics, and it subtly pushes you to evaluate that observation and it ends up hurting your judgment. And even if you are *right* about a particular fact you may still miss out - example, it’s a bit of a cliche, which happens to be factual insofar as it’s reflected by statistics, that DP’s generally make poor directors and if you look at the number of successful directors from the ranks of writers and editors, versus DP’s that is very true. So if you are evaluating an idea, knowing that it was made by a DP can unconciously bias you against it and push you to reject it, rather than give it a more dispassionate look, and you could miss out in the more rare case of good directors who came for the ranks of DPs.
This btw. is a win for all. Not only will the anonymous person - perhaps a celebrity who doesn’t want their identity to influence their interactions - be free to join and participate (or woman, or minority, or whoever), but it is a huge win for those who have biases. Because now, free from the bias associated with identity X, I can be exposed to an interesting point of view I might not have had the ability to see before, blinded as I was by my biases. Diversity is a strength not just because of moral reasons, but because it brings in other perspectives and life experiences. So hurray for anonymity and the freedom and diversity and enrichment it brings!
Or we can go to a model of identity politics or “who says what”, and prejudice and confirmation bias and not listening because our biases have made up our minds and it’ll look like those stifling samey boardrooms.
You want diversity? You want integrity of argument? You want unbiased interactions? Then you want anonymity. The wisest thing we could do would be to mandate dvxusers to all use aliases. However, I’m the live and let live type of guy, so I’m OK with everyone choosing for themselves how they want to present themselves. TOS still applies.
The way to increase diversity is to make the site an alias only site - no real names. However, failing that, to leave the option of aliases. Evidence? Yep, we have excellent data in that respect.
When orchestras hire musicians, they audition them. It used to be that a panel would listen to someone play an instrument and the musician would do it right in front of them. The result was very little diversity for decades. Then, they switched to having the musician play behind a screen. Wouldn’t you know! The diversity skyrocketed! All of a sudden f.ex. women started getting hired and that changed auditions forever. Women musicians used to be a rarity in orchestras, but since the blind auditions started, the numbers of women soared - today, for example, fully half of all musicians in the New York Philharmonic are women. It was so successful that orchestras have now fully saturated with “interested” musicians and now to increase diversity further along minority axis they’re even thinking of simply doing a quota system and dispensing with blind auditions in such cases! But the point stands - blind auditions revolutionized the ranks of women in the ranks. Is it the *only* solution, of course not, and as we’ve seen in the quota system, sometimes blind auditions are not the only answer.
It remains a fact, that a woman or POC may feel more comfortable interacting anonymously and without the pressure of possible bias on sites like dvxuser. Because bias can be totally unconscious.
The reality is not that the panels were necessarily racist or misogynist. There is such a thing as unconscious bias, which you may simply not be aware of, despite your best efforts.
This is why it’s such a pernicious suggestion that you can only evaluate what someone says by knowing who it is who says it. The opposite is true, and we’ve known this for centuries, hence the saying “don’t judge a book by its cover”. We all have unconscious biases and therefore *who* says something in fact influences us away from objectivity - it would be much better to *not* know who says what, and evaluating what they say from behind a screen, like in the orchestra example.
But this is not my only “evidence”, it’s just a very striking example. Because the evidence has been all around us for a very long time: this is such a well-known fact, that institutions have made extensive efforts to anonymize tests, essays and other evaluative techniques, to increase diversity and access the best candidate for a job. If we only ever did face to face interviews, we’d end up with little diversity - which is why there is such an emphasis on anonymizing whether admissions, or job applications, or best product ideas or whatnot. if you want to eliminate bias - anonymize.
So people who want to “take the measure” of someone by learning of their identity are asking that they bring in bias into their interaction - unconscious bias, which they are unable to compensate for. I strive to do the opposite. I strive to remove the impact of any bias I may have - and we all have it, and we can’t compensate for it - by among others, removing the identity from the equation. I don’t want to judge the argument by who makes it, a book by its cover. Just concentrate on the content of the book, not what wraps it, and on the content of the line of reasoning and not who makes it. When you know a person X makes an observation, your unconscious mind takes into account the context of all the supposed - and sometimes real - characteristics, and it subtly pushes you to evaluate that observation and it ends up hurting your judgment. And even if you are *right* about a particular fact you may still miss out - example, it’s a bit of a cliche, which happens to be factual insofar as it’s reflected by statistics, that DP’s generally make poor directors and if you look at the number of successful directors from the ranks of writers and editors, versus DP’s that is very true. So if you are evaluating an idea, knowing that it was made by a DP can unconciously bias you against it and push you to reject it, rather than give it a more dispassionate look, and you could miss out in the more rare case of good directors who came for the ranks of DPs.
This btw. is a win for all. Not only will the anonymous person - perhaps a celebrity who doesn’t want their identity to influence their interactions - be free to join and participate (or woman, or minority, or whoever), but it is a huge win for those who have biases. Because now, free from the bias associated with identity X, I can be exposed to an interesting point of view I might not have had the ability to see before, blinded as I was by my biases. Diversity is a strength not just because of moral reasons, but because it brings in other perspectives and life experiences. So hurray for anonymity and the freedom and diversity and enrichment it brings!
Or we can go to a model of identity politics or “who says what”, and prejudice and confirmation bias and not listening because our biases have made up our minds and it’ll look like those stifling samey boardrooms.
You want diversity? You want integrity of argument? You want unbiased interactions? Then you want anonymity. The wisest thing we could do would be to mandate dvxusers to all use aliases. However, I’m the live and let live type of guy, so I’m OK with everyone choosing for themselves how they want to present themselves. TOS still applies.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Sounds so wonderful except for the face that the historical evidence of this very forum does not prove it out.
Diversity is one issue. Respect and accountability are others. There are several issues that many have with this forum. No one solution is perfect but you go with what can help the most.
Diversity is one issue. Respect and accountability are others. There are several issues that many have with this forum. No one solution is perfect but you go with what can help the most.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
self edit
Last edited:
JPNola
Veteran
So long Twitter, Facebook, Instagram as well, then. Along with virtually every online platform.
Oh? Has it? There is no accountability on dvxuser? News to me. Is there perfect accountability and moderation? No - but where is there such a perfect site? Has there been an A/B run to show that the current system has been shown to be inferior to a “real names only” version? Sorry, the above strikes me as a series of unsupported assertions. So far, my previous post is the only one that has any cited evidence behind its claims.
I have not participated in the long diversity thread in the cafe section, because frankly it struck me as a topic that’s not been discussed well on dvxuser, and more heat was generated than light. But as the evidence I have cited in my previous post indicates, if you care about diversity, you’ll insist on retaining the anonymous posting option. If a woman or minority wants to ask a question or participate in a discussion, she should not feel obligated to disclose her identity on an industry site, an industry which has historically been filled with bias, lack of representation and frequently outright hostility against those like her.
But look, if folks insist on some subforums being made “your papers please”, then go ahead, however wrongheaded, exclusionary and plain unpractical it may be. Policies of making the tent smaller are not going to lead to the the site growing in the same way building a smaller tent doesn’t result in the tent being bigger, oddly enough. And if you want diversity and bigger numbers - which go hand in hand - make the place less exclusionary not more, simple logic. Insisting on posters exposing one’s identity as a condition of participation will have severely deleterious effects on diversity and numbers.
Live and let live. Allow each member to make their own choices they feel comfortable with.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I don't think this is an apt comparison because the problem is not that we won't admit a diverse membership. The problem seems rather that we can't attract and retain a diverse membership.
I don't think using real names is the end all be all, although it might have the benefit of coaxing people to use the same manners that they use in social situations that have consequences. (I think that Parler actually had an option to upload ID and verify your identity, which would give the user some sort of certificate of authenticity and enhanced esteem on the platform.)
I don't think real names are absolutely necessary. I would just like it if people voluntarily maintained a professional atmosphere. That would probably solve all of the issues I have with the forum and also make it a more welcoming place.
Ben Scott
Veteran
Well yes that's the dream, right? And professionalism also extends to include professional courtesy.
filmguy123
Veteran
I liked what OldCorpse had to say, conceptually it's less about diversity (skin color, gender) and more speaking to how we better pay attention to content/quality with blinders on.
I know a friend here in Portland. I love them dearly. They are definitely into the "image" of whatever is hip and cool (coffee, food, etc.), but they simply do not have the most refined palette despite claiming to. To demonstrate this, I got a cold brew from the best local craft coffee shop and a cold brew from Starbucks. Here's the thing: the one from the local craft shop IS better, but cold brew is a very, very forgiving way to brew coffee (it removes a lot of acidity and works great even with older beans) so it's not dramatic like the hot brewed coffees are. I swapped the cold brew in each cup, putting the craft coffee into the starbucks container and vice versa. I was talking to him about how he probably couldn't even tell the difference between them because of the science of cold brew, and we all had a good laugh when he VERY confidently declared after trying each that the craft was great and the Starbucks one was 'GROSS!'. Lol. I don't know if he's every totally forgiven me for that one (kidding, we're great friends) but it made the point that there was a lot of "judging the book by its cover" going on.
There are some things where knowing the source is essential - especially things that are not verifiable by one's own reason or research alone. We all have to make our own discretion calls and take things with a grain of salt if someone is speaking of something of this nature online, not only when someone is posting anonymously but even when they are not. And yet there are many, many other things that are better judged simply by the content itself. In OldCorpse's orchestra example, you don't need to see what a person looks like to assess whether or not they can play an instrument well. You have your own ears. The illustration shared points out that when they could see the performer, this additional stimuli actually clouded their judgement rather than enhanced it. When the source was anonymous and they could judge by sound alone, it is certainly notable that diversity increased. It showed that bias was in the picture.
In the same way, many things we can judge by our own reason alone. I took a read through Ben Scott's FX6 owner's thread, looking at people's configs and ideas. I can tell by reading and looking at pics what ideas I like, or what ideas pique my interest, or what I don't like. I don't need to know who they are or how good they are at filming in order to assess if I like their case layout. I don't need to know who Run'n'Gun is in real life to find immense value in his posts, because I can look up what he is saying and verify it myself, or test it and try it out myself with little to no consequence, or read a back and forth debate between him and another user to help suss out the pros/cons of his approach. I've been told in the past when I was first starting out and asking for help in lighting that I couldn't get by with less than a $5000 lighting package, and also told that I could grab halogen lights from Home Depot, some gels to change the color temp, and a shower curtain for diffusion. My own reasoning faculties can tell me where each person is coming from and which solution may fit me best, and, as all real life conversations should be as well... merely served as an excellent source of inspiration in my journey to learn, experiment, and find the right solution.
I have been surprised by the way some people communicate with their real name on here. And likewise surprised by how courteous and helpful so many others are who post anonymously. These anonymous users have nothing to gain, and yet many have been immensely helpful to me and patient with my questions over the years and I am extremely grateful for that. IMO, if someone is being rude or problematic, this is for the mods to moderate based on the content of the contribution or the persons contributions over time. As well, we have a community upvote/downvote system that adds orange dots to people's names, which gives a helpful indication of what the community thinks of the members contributions over time. It's worth pointing out we have a number of real name members here with one or more red dots next to their name, and many anonymous members with a lot of orange dots. Those dots tell me more in a glance than knowing someone's name is Tim or John.
I do understand the very valid ideas behind real name communities, they better mirror real life and masks of anonymity can of course promote bad behavior, and can make it difficult to verify if the person you are asking advice from has much experience at all. But internet forums simply aren't "real life" and come with a number of other concurrent issues that are reasonable and important as well.
There is a big difference between unmoderated anonymous communities and well moderated anonymous communities. In practice real name communities have often fall prey to many of the same complaints that well moderated anonymous communities do. This is likely a factor of humans being humans. IMO the content and quality of a person's post often betrays their experience. If a member is being rude or unhelpful, downvote them or moderate them - real name, or handle. If you don't trust a users post because they are anonymous, just ignore them.
I don't think there's an obvious answer or an easy solution to the diversity issue, except that there are likely a number of factors which contribute to this. Personally I think the logical line that "real names only = polite inclusive forum = more diversity" is too one dimensional, as well as predicated on some assumptions that don't seem to bear out in practice (i.e. users with real names are more polite and helpful than users with handles). It would be great to see more diversity here and everywhere in life, that is simply a win-win scenario because people and life are beautiful and that beauty comes through all of its different expressions. I've learned a lot by reading people challenging each other back and forth here, it's likely accelerated my career by years just getting to browse so many conversations of different schools of thought and methodologies and reason for myself what the pros/cons of these differing viewpoints are and how they may apply for me.
Well, it seems it's all mostly been said at this juncture and the two perspectives are rather well fleshed out. In any case, thanks for reading my 2 cents.
I know a friend here in Portland. I love them dearly. They are definitely into the "image" of whatever is hip and cool (coffee, food, etc.), but they simply do not have the most refined palette despite claiming to. To demonstrate this, I got a cold brew from the best local craft coffee shop and a cold brew from Starbucks. Here's the thing: the one from the local craft shop IS better, but cold brew is a very, very forgiving way to brew coffee (it removes a lot of acidity and works great even with older beans) so it's not dramatic like the hot brewed coffees are. I swapped the cold brew in each cup, putting the craft coffee into the starbucks container and vice versa. I was talking to him about how he probably couldn't even tell the difference between them because of the science of cold brew, and we all had a good laugh when he VERY confidently declared after trying each that the craft was great and the Starbucks one was 'GROSS!'. Lol. I don't know if he's every totally forgiven me for that one (kidding, we're great friends) but it made the point that there was a lot of "judging the book by its cover" going on.
There are some things where knowing the source is essential - especially things that are not verifiable by one's own reason or research alone. We all have to make our own discretion calls and take things with a grain of salt if someone is speaking of something of this nature online, not only when someone is posting anonymously but even when they are not. And yet there are many, many other things that are better judged simply by the content itself. In OldCorpse's orchestra example, you don't need to see what a person looks like to assess whether or not they can play an instrument well. You have your own ears. The illustration shared points out that when they could see the performer, this additional stimuli actually clouded their judgement rather than enhanced it. When the source was anonymous and they could judge by sound alone, it is certainly notable that diversity increased. It showed that bias was in the picture.
In the same way, many things we can judge by our own reason alone. I took a read through Ben Scott's FX6 owner's thread, looking at people's configs and ideas. I can tell by reading and looking at pics what ideas I like, or what ideas pique my interest, or what I don't like. I don't need to know who they are or how good they are at filming in order to assess if I like their case layout. I don't need to know who Run'n'Gun is in real life to find immense value in his posts, because I can look up what he is saying and verify it myself, or test it and try it out myself with little to no consequence, or read a back and forth debate between him and another user to help suss out the pros/cons of his approach. I've been told in the past when I was first starting out and asking for help in lighting that I couldn't get by with less than a $5000 lighting package, and also told that I could grab halogen lights from Home Depot, some gels to change the color temp, and a shower curtain for diffusion. My own reasoning faculties can tell me where each person is coming from and which solution may fit me best, and, as all real life conversations should be as well... merely served as an excellent source of inspiration in my journey to learn, experiment, and find the right solution.
I have been surprised by the way some people communicate with their real name on here. And likewise surprised by how courteous and helpful so many others are who post anonymously. These anonymous users have nothing to gain, and yet many have been immensely helpful to me and patient with my questions over the years and I am extremely grateful for that. IMO, if someone is being rude or problematic, this is for the mods to moderate based on the content of the contribution or the persons contributions over time. As well, we have a community upvote/downvote system that adds orange dots to people's names, which gives a helpful indication of what the community thinks of the members contributions over time. It's worth pointing out we have a number of real name members here with one or more red dots next to their name, and many anonymous members with a lot of orange dots. Those dots tell me more in a glance than knowing someone's name is Tim or John.
I do understand the very valid ideas behind real name communities, they better mirror real life and masks of anonymity can of course promote bad behavior, and can make it difficult to verify if the person you are asking advice from has much experience at all. But internet forums simply aren't "real life" and come with a number of other concurrent issues that are reasonable and important as well.
There is a big difference between unmoderated anonymous communities and well moderated anonymous communities. In practice real name communities have often fall prey to many of the same complaints that well moderated anonymous communities do. This is likely a factor of humans being humans. IMO the content and quality of a person's post often betrays their experience. If a member is being rude or unhelpful, downvote them or moderate them - real name, or handle. If you don't trust a users post because they are anonymous, just ignore them.
I don't think there's an obvious answer or an easy solution to the diversity issue, except that there are likely a number of factors which contribute to this. Personally I think the logical line that "real names only = polite inclusive forum = more diversity" is too one dimensional, as well as predicated on some assumptions that don't seem to bear out in practice (i.e. users with real names are more polite and helpful than users with handles). It would be great to see more diversity here and everywhere in life, that is simply a win-win scenario because people and life are beautiful and that beauty comes through all of its different expressions. I've learned a lot by reading people challenging each other back and forth here, it's likely accelerated my career by years just getting to browse so many conversations of different schools of thought and methodologies and reason for myself what the pros/cons of these differing viewpoints are and how they may apply for me.
Well, it seems it's all mostly been said at this juncture and the two perspectives are rather well fleshed out. In any case, thanks for reading my 2 cents.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Agreed. Real names would also help people find advice from people relevant to their level and production experience and ignore those who don’t fit their current needs.
Ben Scott
Veteran
That's a well reasoned opinion which I think probably stands up quite well, even if I am on the other side of that opinion I can see how you have reached those conclusions without the hysteria and hyperbole present in other posts here.
I'd just add I don't think people believe, or have stated they believe, a real names forum begets a more diverse forum.
I feel it just begets a more professional forum. Whatever knock on effect that has is speculation until it happens.
The question of diversity is sort of moot I feel. That ship has sailed for this place. In many ways it is what it is and as demonstrated in this very thread to change its atmosphere and Vibe would be a root and branch upheaval and would make it fundamentally not this place any more. That could be good or bad for a lot of people for a lot of reasons. Ultimately it would probably be simpler for someone to just start something new.
I'll stop saying begets now.
JPNola
Veteran
Knowing a user’s real name doesn’t tell others anything as to experience-level in and of itself.
A person joining the forum can claim any name they like as their real-name.
It is a common fallacy that real-name use improves behavior:
https://boingboing.net/2017/01/06/using-real-names-online-doesn.html
“ the balance of experimental evidence over the past thirty years suggests that this is not the case. Not only would removing anonymity fail to consistently improve online community behavior – forcing real names in online communities could also increase discrimination and worsen harassment.
We need to change our entire approach to the question. Our concerns about anonymity are overly-simplistic; system design can’t solve social problems without actual social change.”
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/real-name-fallacy-erkki-helio
combatentropy
Veteran
EDIT: Jinx to JPNola. He wrote his post while I wrote mine, and we seem to agree.
There is a legitimate need to sift comments, even in a specialized forum like DVXUser. Yes, it has already narrowed the field to people interested in audio and video production. But that still leaves a diverse group:
The same goes for the computer forum I frequent, and I suppose other specialized forums, like for musicians.
The thing is, I still don't see how "Liam Hall" tells which of the above that you are. The link to your website in your signature is far more useful. And I guess that's what y'all really mean. Especially for a more common name like Jane Smith, without a link to a website, it's practically useless for qualifying a poster.
I am fine with any of you giving my comments little weight. I am fine if you simply scroll past my comment without reading it at all, because I have not put a real name. Just add .com to my username, and there you have my website. And you will see that I am quite useless to give you any advice on menu settings in the FX6. Or if you just read my profile, you will see that I am a washed-up has-been.
I consider posting on DVXUser a privilege, and I am grateful to anyone who takes the time to read my posts, much more someone who actually replies. I think I do have something to offer in certain threads, but less so in any of the camera-specific ones --- which is why you won't find me in any of those. I certainly don't have any reason to post in the one entitled "Sony ILME-FX6V Owners Club". However, you will find me occasionally popping into ones about industry trends, ergonomics, general technique --- because I spent over a decade studying and practicing filmmaking, and I continue to meditate on the art, almost two decades later. But I'm a bit of a weirdo.
DVXUser activity seems to have gone down a lot since its heyday. If you use the Search tool to find some random thread from 10 or 15 years ago, I think you will find a lot more posts per thread, from users who never post anymore. Most of the people who are (1) codenamed, (2) long-time members, and (3) still posting, seem to me to be mid-tier pros with years and years of experience. So if it's a codenamed person who joined a long time ago, then they probably are worth listening to. If it is a codenamed person who joined recently, then I would take their words with several grains of salt. There are no hurt feelings there. I would expect that they should expect to be taken in that way.
In summary, I am fine if you ignore me if you are fine with my username. And I think I speak for most of us. (By that I mean silently ignoring us, not saying something mean to us.) However you may sometimes be shortchanging yourself. Run&Gun, for example, seems to be superb at lighting, based on a few samples he has shared and his description of his work habits (he is in fact not run-and-gun but slow and methodical). Or almost all of the handful of people who post regularly in the Audio section. That is perhaps DVXUser's best section, in terms of signal-to-noise ratio
There is a legitimate need to sift comments, even in a specialized forum like DVXUser. Yes, it has already narrowed the field to people interested in audio and video production. But that still leaves a diverse group:
- newbies
- old pros
- wedding and event videographers
- corporate and commercial
- high-end DPs (we have one or two?)
- DSLR shooters
- shoulder cam shooters
- audio professionals
The same goes for the computer forum I frequent, and I suppose other specialized forums, like for musicians.
The thing is, I still don't see how "Liam Hall" tells which of the above that you are. The link to your website in your signature is far more useful. And I guess that's what y'all really mean. Especially for a more common name like Jane Smith, without a link to a website, it's practically useless for qualifying a poster.
I am fine with any of you giving my comments little weight. I am fine if you simply scroll past my comment without reading it at all, because I have not put a real name. Just add .com to my username, and there you have my website. And you will see that I am quite useless to give you any advice on menu settings in the FX6. Or if you just read my profile, you will see that I am a washed-up has-been.
I consider posting on DVXUser a privilege, and I am grateful to anyone who takes the time to read my posts, much more someone who actually replies. I think I do have something to offer in certain threads, but less so in any of the camera-specific ones --- which is why you won't find me in any of those. I certainly don't have any reason to post in the one entitled "Sony ILME-FX6V Owners Club". However, you will find me occasionally popping into ones about industry trends, ergonomics, general technique --- because I spent over a decade studying and practicing filmmaking, and I continue to meditate on the art, almost two decades later. But I'm a bit of a weirdo.
DVXUser activity seems to have gone down a lot since its heyday. If you use the Search tool to find some random thread from 10 or 15 years ago, I think you will find a lot more posts per thread, from users who never post anymore. Most of the people who are (1) codenamed, (2) long-time members, and (3) still posting, seem to me to be mid-tier pros with years and years of experience. So if it's a codenamed person who joined a long time ago, then they probably are worth listening to. If it is a codenamed person who joined recently, then I would take their words with several grains of salt. There are no hurt feelings there. I would expect that they should expect to be taken in that way.
In summary, I am fine if you ignore me if you are fine with my username. And I think I speak for most of us. (By that I mean silently ignoring us, not saying something mean to us.) However you may sometimes be shortchanging yourself. Run&Gun, for example, seems to be superb at lighting, based on a few samples he has shared and his description of his work habits (he is in fact not run-and-gun but slow and methodical). Or almost all of the handful of people who post regularly in the Audio section. That is perhaps DVXUser's best section, in terms of signal-to-noise ratio
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I assure you, combatentropy, that your posts are read and appreciated.
I think the idea of using real names is that if you behave like a troll, it could come back to harm your professional life. So, it would encourage people to exercise the same self-censorship they do in real life. (BTW Parler had a way to upload ID and verify your identity.)
And also - networking with other professionals in the field is sort of a basic function of being a cameraman, and encouraging that sort of behavior would probably enhance the forum and help it expand.
BTW, "mid-tier pros" is sort of a misnomer because there are so many separate sectors of filmmaking. You could be the most famous drama DP in the world and not be a good doc shooter. You could be a high-end doc shooter and have no skill or experience shooting wildlife. You could be the best handheld or steadicam operator and not know much about lighting. You could make more money in mid-tier corporate than in high-end doc. Etc.
Anyone can have a good insight. I appreciated learning from Brawley's experience, but he himself said that he himself would never take anyone's word for anything (but rather conduct research and testing to verify the conclusion).
I think the idea of using real names is that if you behave like a troll, it could come back to harm your professional life. So, it would encourage people to exercise the same self-censorship they do in real life. (BTW Parler had a way to upload ID and verify your identity.)
And also - networking with other professionals in the field is sort of a basic function of being a cameraman, and encouraging that sort of behavior would probably enhance the forum and help it expand.
BTW, "mid-tier pros" is sort of a misnomer because there are so many separate sectors of filmmaking. You could be the most famous drama DP in the world and not be a good doc shooter. You could be a high-end doc shooter and have no skill or experience shooting wildlife. You could be the best handheld or steadicam operator and not know much about lighting. You could make more money in mid-tier corporate than in high-end doc. Etc.
Anyone can have a good insight. I appreciated learning from Brawley's experience, but he himself said that he himself would never take anyone's word for anything (but rather conduct research and testing to verify the conclusion).
- Status